Lesson 21: They want to Sign you up to Get Rid of You
Wind Farm Living EDUCATING THE LAWYERS Series
As a neighbour you are a problem to the wind company.
Neighbours pose a threat because:
So if you sign an agreement then can’t sleep at night -
Wind farm developers need your Land Title as part of their business collateral.
It is more attractive to the banks and foreign investors or buyers if the neighbours are gagged.
They are trained at the con.
Here’s how it works:
Do your Own Background Testing
Wind farms will manipulate and engineer your quiet background environment to show your home is noisy at night.
You need insurance.
You need to get your own data.
Engage an independent Acoustician.
WFL recommends: L Huson & Associates (0416 143 716)
You need to Protect your Asset and your Family - DON’T SIGN ANYTHING
Don’t sign any wind farm agreement, deed or piece of paper “to move forward on the discussion”.
Don’t allow them onto your land to do noise testing without a signed agreement, drawn up by your lawyer, to receive the Raw Data.
Don’t allow any paddock loggers on your land.
Don’t use the “free lawyer” recommended by the wind company. Engage your own lawyer.
Don’t use the “free acoustician” suggested by the wind farm – engage your own independent acoustician.
- They know they will cause you harm.
- They know they will cause you sleep disturbance.
- They know you may suffer turbine sickness.
Neighbours pose a threat because:
- Neighbours can complain, which is a black mark against their business credentials.
- Neighbours can take legal action, and, like the Bald Hills Boy, have the power to turn the turbines off.
- Wind farms have no defence against the Tort of Nuisance, their compliance methods are flawed, and they are exposed in court.
- They need to negate you.
- They do this by signing you up to a neighbour agreement or deed.
- The agreement or deed follows the title.
- You are deemed a business stakeholder and are required to comply with confidentiality laws.
So if you sign an agreement then can’t sleep at night -
- You will be forced to leave your home.
- You may not attract any buyers because of the neighbour agreement covenant on your land title.
- You may be forced to abandon your home because the covenant triggers disclosure laws.
Wind farm developers need your Land Title as part of their business collateral.
It is more attractive to the banks and foreign investors or buyers if the neighbours are gagged.
They are trained at the con.
Here’s how it works:
- They leave a noise prediction map that says the maximum you will hear is 40dB (like a fridge).
- When in fact, 40dB is the minimum noise you will hear in your bedroom – and there is no maximum level.
- They hard sell by saying things like: “Everyone is signing – you will miss out”. “There is only so much money – you will miss out”.
- They offer “free” noise testing to collect your noise data to use against you in court.
- They offer a “gift” of a tree plantation to claim later the background levels have increased because of the growth in the tree foliage.
Do your Own Background Testing
Wind farms will manipulate and engineer your quiet background environment to show your home is noisy at night.
You need insurance.
You need to get your own data.
Engage an independent Acoustician.
WFL recommends: L Huson & Associates (0416 143 716)
You need to Protect your Asset and your Family - DON’T SIGN ANYTHING
Don’t sign any wind farm agreement, deed or piece of paper “to move forward on the discussion”.
Don’t allow them onto your land to do noise testing without a signed agreement, drawn up by your lawyer, to receive the Raw Data.
Don’t allow any paddock loggers on your land.
Don’t use the “free lawyer” recommended by the wind company. Engage your own lawyer.
Don’t use the “free acoustician” suggested by the wind farm – engage your own independent acoustician.
NOEL UREN and JOHN ZAKULA Plaintiffs
v
BALD HILLS WIND FARM PTY LTD Defendant
Highlights - read full judgement in file below
BALD HILLS NOISE FARM - IS NOT PERMIT NOISE COMPLIANT - IS NOISY AND A NUISANCE - CAUSES SLEEP DEPRIVATION - CAUSES A PATHWAY TO DISEASE - CAUSES STRESS AND ANXIETY - AFFECTS YOUR MENTAL HEALTH
Nuisance (1) Has noise from wind turbines on the wind farm operated by Bald Hills caused a substantial interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land? Yes. Noise from the turbines on the wind farm has caused a substantial interference with both plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land — specifically, their ability to sleep undisturbed at night, in their own beds in their own homes.
Bald Hills has not established that the sound received at either Mr Uren’s house or Mr Zakula’s house complied with the noise conditions in the permit at any time.
Bald Hills did not demonstrate compliance with condition 19(a) of the permit, either by the 2021 assessment of noise monitoring data undertaken by its acoustic expert, Christopher Turnbull, or his review of MDA’s noise assessments.
However, there is not a binary choice to be made between the generation of clean energy by the wind farm, and a good night’s sleep for its neighbours. It should be possible to achieve both.
Bald Hills has not demonstrated compliance with the noise conditions in the permit at Mr Uren’s house or at Mr Zakula’s house at any time.
Noise from the wind turbines on the wind farm has amounted, intermittently at night, to a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land.
The noise nuisance from the wind turbines, if it were to continue, would reduce the value of Mr Zakula’s property by $200,000.
Bald Hills’ conduct towards both Mr Uren and Mr Zakula was highhanded and warrants an award of aggravated damages. The manner in which Bald Hills dealt with the plaintiffs’ reasonable and legitimate complaints of noise, over many years, at least doubled the impact of the loss of amenity each of them suffered at their homes.
According to Mr Jelbart, the noise at Tenement A is ‘horrific during the day’. He said that if he has to spend a couple of hours there, he will either put in earplugs or leave the property altogether. He described the noise at Tenement A as a ‘pulsing throb’, sometimes with a ‘whoosh’, and often with a ‘gearbox noise’, a ‘grinding sort of Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd 107 JUDGMENT mechanical noise’, which signals that there is a gearbox in need of attention.
Bald Hills contended that damages would be an appropriate remedy in Mr Zakula’s case.
There is no evidence on which I could find that abating the nuisance would be likely to result in lost jobs, interrupted electricity supply, disappointed investors, or frustrated government policy.
BALD HILLS NOISE FARM - IS NOT PERMIT NOISE COMPLIANT - IS NOISY AND A NUISANCE - CAUSES SLEEP DEPRIVATION - CAUSES A PATHWAY TO DISEASE - CAUSES STRESS AND ANXIETY - AFFECTS YOUR MENTAL HEALTH
Nuisance (1) Has noise from wind turbines on the wind farm operated by Bald Hills caused a substantial interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land? Yes. Noise from the turbines on the wind farm has caused a substantial interference with both plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land — specifically, their ability to sleep undisturbed at night, in their own beds in their own homes.
Bald Hills has not established that the sound received at either Mr Uren’s house or Mr Zakula’s house complied with the noise conditions in the permit at any time.
Bald Hills did not demonstrate compliance with condition 19(a) of the permit, either by the 2021 assessment of noise monitoring data undertaken by its acoustic expert, Christopher Turnbull, or his review of MDA’s noise assessments.
However, there is not a binary choice to be made between the generation of clean energy by the wind farm, and a good night’s sleep for its neighbours. It should be possible to achieve both.
Bald Hills has not demonstrated compliance with the noise conditions in the permit at Mr Uren’s house or at Mr Zakula’s house at any time.
Noise from the wind turbines on the wind farm has amounted, intermittently at night, to a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land.
The noise nuisance from the wind turbines, if it were to continue, would reduce the value of Mr Zakula’s property by $200,000.
Bald Hills’ conduct towards both Mr Uren and Mr Zakula was highhanded and warrants an award of aggravated damages. The manner in which Bald Hills dealt with the plaintiffs’ reasonable and legitimate complaints of noise, over many years, at least doubled the impact of the loss of amenity each of them suffered at their homes.
According to Mr Jelbart, the noise at Tenement A is ‘horrific during the day’. He said that if he has to spend a couple of hours there, he will either put in earplugs or leave the property altogether. He described the noise at Tenement A as a ‘pulsing throb’, sometimes with a ‘whoosh’, and often with a ‘gearbox noise’, a ‘grinding sort of Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd 107 JUDGMENT mechanical noise’, which signals that there is a gearbox in need of attention.
Bald Hills contended that damages would be an appropriate remedy in Mr Zakula’s case.
There is no evidence on which I could find that abating the nuisance would be likely to result in lost jobs, interrupted electricity supply, disappointed investors, or frustrated government policy.
| bald_hills_t0145.pdf |
Unlike the Minister, I am not satisfied that Bald Hills has demonstrated compliance
with the noise conditions in the permit at Mr Zakula’s house or at Mr Uren’s house at any time.
|
|
Activities of a Windfarm Construction and Operation are not covered by standard farming public liability insurance.
Farmers warned to look out for 'cowboys' when signing complex renewable energy contracts on farmland
|
Legal experts and renewable energy advocates have warned farmers to be wary of land speculators looking to cash in on the renewable energy boom.
Key points:
Firm director Philip Brunner said many of the documents were detailed, complex, and weighted for the benefit of the proponent. "It feels like there are a lot of cowboys out there," he said. "Like mining, you have a lot of juniors or fly-by-nighters that sort of try to tie up land and then on-sell that to a bigger entity — it feels a bit like that." |
|
|
|
